No EC nod needed for voter to sue candidate over false information: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that a voter may file a private criminal complaint against a candidate accused of submitting false information in an election affidavit. Election Commission approval is not required. This gives voters a direct legal route beyond simply challenging an election through an election petition.

The ruling concerned Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act. The Court held that this offence does not fall within the restriction created by Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, a magistrate can take cognisance of a complaint filed by an individual voter.

The Court quashed a Karnataka High Court order that had rejected this route. It said the ruling could further empower voters to act against candidates who lie in affidavits. If complaints are frivolous or intended to harass, magistrates can pass appropriate orders under existing law.

Section 125-A is a provision inserted into the Representation of People Act in 2002. It concerns a candidate furnishing false information in an affidavit connected with an election. The article describes this as filing a false affidavit or making a false declaration.

The provision applies when a candidate provides false information in the affidavit with the intent of being elected. The article does not list particular categories of information. Its focus is the alleged falsity of information submitted by the candidate in the required election affidavit.

The offence can lead to criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a private person can bring a complaint under Section 125-A. It also rejected the view that only the Election Commission could act. The Court’s interpretation therefore makes the provision directly usable by voters who believe an affidavit contains false information.

The Supreme Court held that an individual voter can initiate proceedings by filing a private complaint under Section 125-A. The voter does not need prior approval or a formal go-ahead from the Election Commission. This was the central point in the Court’s disagreement with the Karnataka High Court.

The Election Commission had issued a press note stating that it could take cognisance of complaints and refer matters to investigating authorities case by case. The Supreme Court did not accept that press note as controlling. It said statutory interpretation belongs primarily to courts, and such guidelines or press notes do not bind them.

The practical result is that voters and the Election Commission are not placed in the same exclusive channel. A voter can approach a court directly. The Court’s ruling therefore removes the alleged requirement that the Election Commission must first decide whether a complaint should proceed.

A candidate convicted under Section 125-A can face a jail term of up to six months. The article describes the offence as punishable with imprisonment for that period. It does not provide a different punishment scale or explain whether another penalty may also apply.

This punishment matters because the Supreme Court treated the alleged false affidavit as a criminal offence that can be brought before a magistrate. The complaint need not come only from the Election Commission. A private person may also ask the court to examine the allegation.

The possibility of imprisonment gives the affidavit requirement real legal weight after an election. Still, a complaint does not itself establish guilt. The court must consider the allegation and follow the criminal process. The article also notes that magistrates can reject or address frivolous complaints and allegations filed to harass an elected candidate.

Allowing private complaints gives voters a direct criminal-law option when they believe a candidate has lied in an election affidavit. They are no longer limited to the route the Karnataka High Court had described as available: filing an election petition. This strengthens the electorate’s ability to question information submitted before voting.

For example, a voter who believes a candidate furnished false information could lodge a complaint with a court. The court can take cognisance without waiting for Election Commission approval. The key mechanism is Section 125-A, read independently from Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Supreme Court said the ruling would further empower voters against candidates who lied in affidavits. It also recognised concerns about political rivals filing frivolous cases. Magistrates can pass suitable orders when complaints are intended to harass or lack merit, so the new route does not guarantee prosecution.

Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code restricts courts from taking cognisance of certain offences unless the required complaint comes through the specified public channel. The issue was whether that restriction also covered Section 125-A of the Representation of People Act.

The Supreme Court compared the dates. Section 125-A was inserted in 2002, while Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code was amended in 2006. When the legislature amended Section 195, it did not include Section 125-A. The Court treated that omission as deliberate rather than accidental.

It therefore held that Section 125-A does not come within Section 195’s restriction. A court may take cognisance of a private complaint alleging a false election affidavit. The Court said that if lawmakers intended complaints to come only from a public servant, they could have expressly amended Section 195 to say so.

An election petition and a criminal complaint serve different purposes. An election petition is the route identified in the case for challenging an election. A criminal complaint alleges that a candidate committed an offence and asks the criminal court to begin the legal process, which may lead to punishment.

The Karnataka High Court had held that a voter’s right was limited to filing an election petition. It said registering a private criminal case was the Election Commission’s duty if the Commission chose to act. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation and allowed a private complaint under Section 125-A.

Thus, a voter does not have to choose only the election-petition route when alleging false information in an affidavit. The criminal complaint concerns alleged false declaration and possible imprisonment of up to six months. The court must still assess the complaint, and magistrates can deal with frivolous or harassing cases.